HCAMP Post-Injury IMPACT Data
Summary of Individuals who Completed Post-Injury IMPACT Testing
Table 1
Plot 1
Table 2
Plot 2
Is there a significant difference in IMPACT test performance for individuals who completed baseline and post-injury assessments?
Verbal Memory
One Baseline and One Post-Injury Test
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean verbal memory composite scores of individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury assessment (n = 4,540). Performance on the verbal memory composite between baseline 1 and post-injury 1 assessments was determined to not be significant, t(4,539) = 1.837, p = .066. The mean baseline 1 score (M = 82.56) was not significantly different than the mean post-injury 1 score (M = 82.19).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: bl_pi_mem_verbal_1 and bl_pi_mem_verbal_2
## t = 1.8369, df = 4539, p-value = 0.06629
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.02518812 0.77408680
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 0.3744493Baseline Summary
Baseline Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Baseline and Two Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury assessments (n = 2,498), performance on the verbal memory composite score was statistically significantly different, F(2.82, 7,030.62) = 244.45, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.05.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest verbal memory score on the second baseline administration (M = 85.57) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 78.60).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 139 scores identified to be outliers, 5 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.82 7030.62 244.451 3.04e-142 * 0.046Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Three Baseline and Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury assessments (n = 254), performance on the verbal memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(4.2, 1,061.98) = 54.55, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.11.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Twelve out of 15 pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest verbal memory score on the third baseline administration (M = 87.50) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 75.24). The following pairwise comparisons were not significant: Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 3, Baseline 2 and Baseline 3, and Baseline 2 and Post-Injury 3.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 24 scores identified to be outliers, 1 is considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 4.2 1061.98 54.663 1.11e-43 * 0.108Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Baseline 3 Summary
Baseline 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-injury 3 Histogram
Visual Memory
One Baseline and One Post-Injury Test
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual memory composite scores of individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury assessment (n = 4,540). Performance on the visual memory composite between baseline 1 and post-injury 1 assessments was determined to not be significant, t(4,539) = -0.497, p = .62. The mean baseline 1 score (M = 72.16) was not significantly different than the mean post-injury 1 score (M = 72.27).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: bl_pi_mem_visual_1 and bl_pi_mem_visual_2
## t = -0.4971, df = 4539, p-value = 0.6191
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.5531866 0.3293980
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -0.1118943Baseline Summary
Baseline Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Baseline and Two Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury assessments (n = 2,498), performance on the visual memory composite score was statistically significantly different, F(2.93, 7,309.61) = 226.65, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.04.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Five out of six pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual memory score on the second baseline administration (M = 76.53) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 68.80). Average performance on Baseline 1 (M = 72.11) and Post-Injury 2 (M = 72.31) was not significantly different.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 72 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.93 7309.61 226.645 2e-137 * 0.039Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Three Baseline and Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury assessments (n = 254), performance on the visual memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(4.7, 1,189.47) = 51.78, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.09.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Twelve out of 15 pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual memory score on the third baseline administration (M = 78.76) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 66.08). The following pairwise comparisons were not significant: Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 3, Baseline 2 and Baseline 3, and Post-Injury 1 and Post-Injury 2.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 12 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 4.7 1189.47 51.776 3.49e-46 * 0.093Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Baseline 3 Summary
Baseline 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-injury 3 Histogram
Impulse Control
One Baseline and One Post-Injury Test
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean impulse control composite scores of individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury assessment (n = 4,540). Performance on the impulse control composite between baseline 1 and post-injury 1 assessments was determined to not be significant, t(4,539) = -0.850, p = .395. The mean baseline 1 score (M = 7.73) was not significantly different than the mean post-injury 1 score (M = 7.82).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: bl_pi_impulse_control_1 and bl_pi_impulse_control_2
## t = -0.8502, df = 4539, p-value = 0.3953
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.3087457 0.1219616
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -0.09339207Baseline Summary
Baseline Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Baseline and Two Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury assessments (n = 2,498), performance on the impulse control composite score was statistically significantly different, F(2.66, 6,633.91) = 17, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.003.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Three out of six pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest impulse control score on the first post-injury administration (M = 8.50) and their lowest score on the second post-injury administration (M = 7.53). The following pairwise comparisons were not not significant: Baseline 1 and Baseline 2, Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 2, and Baseline 2 and Post-Injury 2. Performance on Post-Injury 1 was signficiantly different from all other comparisons.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 446 scores identified to be outliers, 78 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed, although extreme outliers on the Post-Injury 1 assessment are concerning.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.66 6633.91 17.003 5.28e-10 * 0.003Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Three Baseline and Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury assessments (n = 254), performance on the impulse control composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(3.73, 943.1) = 2.99, p = .021, generalized eta squared = 0.007.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Only 2 out of 15 pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest impulse control score on the first post-injury administration (M = 9.17) and their lowest score on the first baseline administration (M = 7.5). Only the differences in scores between Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 1 and Baseline 2 and Post-Injury 1 were significant.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 67 scores identified to be outliers, 17 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 3.73 943.1 2.988 0.021 * 0.007Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Baseline 3 Summary
Baseline 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-injury 3 Histogram
Reaction Time
One Baseline and One Post-Injury Test
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean reaction time composite scores of individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury assessment (n = 4,540). Performance on the reaction time composite between baseline 1 and post-injury 1 assessments was determined to be significantly different with individuals achieving a better reaction time score on the baseline assessment, t(4,539) = -3.893, p = .0001. The mean baseline 1 score (M = 0.64) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 1 score (M = 0.65).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: bl_pi_reaction_time_1 and bl_pi_reaction_time_2
## t = -3.8927, df = 4539, p-value = 0.0001006
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.011976096 -0.003953419
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -0.007964758Baseline Summary
Baseline Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Baseline and Two Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury assessments (n = 2,498), performance on the reaction time composite score was statistically significantly different, F(2.55, 6,365.51) = 195.75, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.04.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Six out of six pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their best reaction time score on the second baseline administration (M = 0.61) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 0.67).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 343 scores identified to be outliers, 84 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.55 6365.51 195.748 2.36e-104 * 0.038Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Three Baseline and Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury assessments (n = 254), performance on the reaction time composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(3.6, 911.29) = 41.72, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.09.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Twelve out of 15 pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their best reaction time score on the third baseline administration (M = 0.60) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 0.70). The following comparisons were not significantly different: Baseline 3 and Post-Injury 3, Baseline 2 and Post-Injury 3, and Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 2.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 36 scores identified to be outliers, 7 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 3.6 911.29 41.715 1.93e-29 * 0.086Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Baseline 3 Summary
Baseline 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-injury 3 Histogram
Visual Motor
One Baseline and One Post-Injury Test
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual motor composite scores of individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury assessment (n = 4,540). Performance on the visual motor composite between baseline 1 and post-injury 1 assessments was determined to be significantly different with individuals achieving a better visual motor score on the post-injury assessment, t(4,539) = -19.244, p < .0001. The mean baseline 1 score (M = 34.11) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 1 score (M = 36.04).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: bl_pi_visual_motor_1 and bl_pi_visual_motor_2
## t = -19.244, df = 4539, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -2.125953 -1.732840
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -1.929396Baseline Summary
Baseline Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Baseline and Two Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury assessments (n = 2,498), performance on the visual motor composite score was statistically significantly different, F(2.61, 6,514.32) = 522.6, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.06.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Six out of six pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual motor score on the second baseline administration (M = 37.98) and their lowest score on the first baseline administration (M = 33.92).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 119 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.61 6514.32 522.598 1.17e-268 * 0.06Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Three Baseline and Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury assessments (n = 254), performance on the visual motor composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(3.82, 967.55) = 82.59, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.1.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Thirteen out of 15 pairwise comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual motor score on the third baseline administration (M = 39.42) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 32.67). The following comparisons were not significantly different: Baseline 2 and Post-Injury 3 and Baseline 1 and Post-Injury 1.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 19 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 3.82 967.55 82.591 3.61e-58 * 0.1Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Baseline 1 Summary
Baseline 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-injury 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
Baseline 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Baseline 3 Summary
Baseline 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-injury 3 Histogram
Baseline and Post-Injury Summary
Verbal Memory
For individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury test, performance on the verbal memory composite was not significantly different. On average, individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the second baseline test and lowest score on the first post-injury test. On average, individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the third baseline test and lowest score on the fist post-injury test.
Visual Memory
For individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury test, performance on the visual memory composite was not significantly different. On average, individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the second baseline test and lowest score on the first post-injury test. On average, individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the third baseline test and lowest score on the fist post-injury test.
Impulse Control
For individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury test, performance on the impulse control composite was not significantly different. On average, individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the first post-injury test and lowest score on the second post-injury test. On average, individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the first post-injury test and lowest score on the first baseline test.
Reaction Time
For individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury test, average performance on the post-injury test was significantly better than the baseline test. On average, individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury tests achieved their best score on the second baseline test and lowest score on the first post-injury test. On average, individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury tests achieved their best score on the third baseline test and lowest score on the first post-injury test.
Visual Motor
For individuals who completed one baseline and one post-injury test, average performance on the post-injury test was significantly better than the baseline test. On average, individuals who completed two baseline and two post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the second baseline test and lowest score on the first baseline test test. On average, individuals who completed three baseline and three post-injury tests achieved their highest score on the third baseline test and lowest score on the first post-injury test.
Is there a significant difference in IMPACT test performance for individuals who completed multiple post-injury test administrations?
The data set contains 10,041 individuals who completed one post-injury test, 5,766 individuals who completed two post-injury tests, 2,570 individuals who completed three post-injury tests, and 966 individuals who completed four post-injury tests. This section will analyze performance across number of post-injury tests completed for each IMPACT composite score.
Verbal Memory
One Post-Injury Test
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Post-Injury Tests
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean verbal memory composite scores of individuals who completed two post-injury assessments (n = 5,766). Performance on the verbal memory composite between post-injury 1 and post-injury 2 assessments was determined to be significantly different, t(5,764) = -29.99, p < .001. The mean post-injury 1 score (M = 77.78) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 2 score (M = 83.07).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: two_pi_mem_verbal_1 and two_pi_mem_verbal_2
## t = -29.99, df = 5764, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -5.627135 -4.936612
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -5.281873Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-Injury 2 Histogram
Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three post-injury tests (n = 2,570), performance on the verbal memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(1.95, 5,005.98) = 445.12, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.06.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All three comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest verbal memory score on the third post-injury administration (M = 83.06) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 75.01).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 128 scores identified to be outliers, 2 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 1.95 5005.98 445.117 1.47e-174 * 0.059Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Four Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed four post-injury tests (n = 966), performance on the verbal memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(2.85, 2,747.44) = 150.11, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.06.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All six comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest verbal memory score on the fourth post-injury administration (M = 82.22) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 72.60).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 60 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.85 2747.44 150.109 5.72e-86 * 0.061Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 4 Summary
Post-Injury 4 Histogram
Visual Memory
One Post-Injury Test
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Post-Injury Tests
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual memory composite scores of individuals who completed two post-injury assessments (n = 5,766). Performance on the visual memory composite between post-injury 1 and post-injury 2 assessments was determined to be significantly different, t(5,764) = -18.53, p < .001. The mean post-injury 1 score (M = 67.37) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 2 score (M = 70.95).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: two_pi_mem_visual_1 and two_pi_mem_visual_2
## t = -18.53, df = 5764, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -3.953807 -3.197277
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -3.575542Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-Injury 2 Histogram
Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three post-injury tests (n = 2,570), performance on the visual memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(1.99, 5,107.37) = 273.95, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.04.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All three comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual memory score on the third post-injury administration (M = 71.31) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 64.67).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 16 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 1.99 5107.37 273.946 3.72e-113 * 0.037Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Four Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed four post-injury tests (n = 966), performance on the visual memory composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(2.96, 2,855.7) = 112.56, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.04.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All six comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual memory score on the fourth post-injury administration (M = 71.15) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 62.64).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 19 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.96 2855.7 112.56 4.81e-68 * 0.045Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 4 Summary
Post-Injury 4 Histogram
Impulse Control
One Post-Injury Test
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Post-Injury Tests
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean impulse control composite scores of individuals who completed two post-injury assessments (n = 5,766). Performance on the impulse control composite between post-injury 1 and post-injury 2 assessments was determined to be significantly different, t(5,765) = 10.89, p < .001. The mean post-injury 1 score (M = 8.7) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 2 score (M = 7.55).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: two_pi_impulse_control_1 and two_pi_impulse_control_2
## t = 10.89, df = 5765, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.9390189 1.3513037
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 1.145161Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-Injury 2 Histogram
Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three post-injury tests (n = 2,570), performance on the impulse control composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(1.8, 4,623.34) = 55.3, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.008.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Two out of three comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest impulse control score on the first post-injury administration (M = 9.63) and their lowest score on the third post-injury administration (M = 7.99). The comparison between the second and third post-injury tests was not significant.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 431 scores identified to be outliers, 135 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is not assumed due to the presence of extreme outliers.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 1.8 4623.34 55.296 2.64e-22 * 0.008Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Four Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed four post-injury tests (n = 966), performance on the impulse control composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(2.47, 2,388) = 27.18, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.01.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. Three out of six comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest impulse control score on the first post-injury administration (M = 10.87) and their lowest score on the fourth post-injury administration (M = 8.46). The following comparisons were not significant: Post-Injury 2 and Post-Injury 3, Post-Injury 2 and Post-Injury 4, and Post-Injury 3 and Post-Injury 4.
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 229 scores identified to be outliers, 75 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is not assumed due to the presence of extreme outliers.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.47 2388 27.184 9.97e-15 * 0.012Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 4 Summary
Post-Injury 4 Histogram
Reaction Time
One Post-Injury Test
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Post-Injury Tests
A paired T-test was used to compare the reaction time composite scores of individuals who completed two post-injury assessments (n = 5,766). Performance on the reaction time composite between post-injury 1 and post-injury 2 assessments was determined to be significantly different, t(5,764) = 26.168, p < .001. The mean post-injury 1 score (M = 0.68) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 2 score (M = 0.63).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: two_pi_reaction_time_1 and two_pi_reaction_time_2
## t = 26.168, df = 5764, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.04500426 0.05229322
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 0.04864874Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-Injury 2 Histogram
Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three post-injury tests (n = 2,570), performance on the reaction time composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(1.85, 4,750.26) = 307.79, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.04.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All three comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their best reaction time score on the third post-injury administration (M = 0.62) and their worst score on the first post-injury administration (M = 0.70).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 288 scores identified to be outliers, 77 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed, but is threatened by the presence of extreme outliers
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 1.85 4750.26 307.787 1.08e-117 * 0.044Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Four Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed four post-injury tests (n = 966), performance on the reaction time composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(2.76, 2,659.02) = 121.47, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.05.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All six comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their best reaction time score on the fourth post-injury administration (M = 0.62) and their worst score on the first post-injury administration (M = 0.71).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 175 scores identified to be outliers, 49 are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed, but is threatened by the presence of extreme outliers.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.76 2659.02 121.466 2.62e-68 * 0.047Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 4 Summary
Post-Injury 4 Histogram
Visual Motor
One Post-Injury Test
Post-Injury Summary
Post-Injury Histogram
Two Post-Injury Tests
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual motor composite scores of individuals who completed two post-injury assessments (n = 5,766). Performance on the visual motor composite between post-injury 1 and post-injury 2 assessments was determined to be significantly different, t(5,765) = -41.202, p < .001. The mean post-injury 1 score (M = 33.58) was significantly different than the mean post-injury 2 score (M = 36.54).
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: two_pi_visual_motor_1 and two_pi_visual_motor_2
## t = -41.202, df = 5765, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -3.094871 -2.813739
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -2.954305Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-Injury 2 Histogram
Three Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed three post-injury tests (n = 2,570), performance on the visual motor composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(1.88, 4,825.98) = 841.66, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.06.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All three comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual motor score on the third post-injury administration (M = 36.59) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 32.09).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 112 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 1.88 4825.98 841.663 6.87e-298 * 0.059Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Four Post-Injury Tests
For individuals who completed four post-injury tests (n = 966), performance on the visual motor composite score was statistically significantly different across tests, F(2.71, 2,611.34) = 321.62, p < .0001, generalized eta squared = 0.07.
All possible pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Bonferroni procedure to control family-wise Type I error. All six comparisons were statistically significantly different (p < .05). On average, individuals achieved their highest visual motor score on the fourth post-injury administration (M = 36.74) and their lowest score on the first post-injury administration (M = 31.02).
Boxplot
Outliers
Of the 55 scores identified to be outliers, none are considered extreme.
Normality Assumption
From the plot, normality is assumed.
ANOVA Computation
## ANOVA Table (type III tests)
##
## Effect DFn DFd F p p<.05 ges
## 1 test 2.71 2611.34 321.623 6.73e-163 * 0.07Pairwise Comparisons
Result Visualization
Post-Injury 1 Summary
Post-Injury 1 Histogram
Post-Injury 2 Summary
Post-injury 2 Histogram
Post-Injury 3 Summary
Post-Injury 3 Histogram
Post-Injury 4 Summary
Post-Injury 4 Histogram
Post-Injury Summary
On the verbal memory, visual memory, reaction time, and visual motor composites, average performance increased in a linear fashion across tests for individuals who completed two, three, and four post-injury assessments. Conversely, average performance on the impulse control composite decreased across tests with the highest score occuring on the first post-injury test across individuals who completed two, three, and four post-injury assessments.